"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
"ex WGS Hamm" writes:
|
| You and I are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently.
If
| someone told my neighbour's kids that they didn't have to ask my
permission
| to come into my garden but to just come and get the ball, that to
me means
| they are being incited to trespass.

Nonsense. Trespass requires damage. Merely entering someone else's
land is not trespass.

Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

For instance, if you take your car on the road to visit your Great Aunt
Agatha, there is no unlawful intent (unless you intend to put rat poison
in her tea caddy). However, under fairly recent legislation, if you
drive your car on the road with the intention of shooting your
neighbour's pheasants, you are committing the tort of trespass on the
public highway, as well as the crimes of armed trespass and aggravated
trespass.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

My understanding is that once a road had been adopted by a Local Authority
or The Highways Authority, everyone has a right of access to and over it.
Criminal intent relates to the intention to commit a crime, not the location
of the person having that intent.
Am I wrong? If so, why? And why should I believe you?